Torchlight (The mmo version)

[Malakili]

My impression from DDO's f2p system was that a great deal of research, thought and marketing expertise went into crafting it. It wasn't simply tacked on. I believe one of their executives said it took two years to plan. It's very good at breaking down certain significant barrier moments to paying.

- free Turbine Points as you play breaks down the barrier to using the shop. Everyone uses the shop to at least spend the free points.

- big upgrade to your account first time you spend cash. Any amount, the minimum is $6 or so, upgrades you to Premium which is much better.

- continually changing list of discounted items. Even when I had no intention of spending anything I had to look just in case there was a huge discount on something I wanted.

- very regular content updates some of which is free. So if you had hit the paywall and got bored you could come back to try out new free dungeons.

- forum support without giving non-payers the ability to spam every board. The free players forum is very helpful and the elder community really works hard to help new people get started.


You can't get all that right if your cash shop is an afterthought. Of course the opposite is also terrible: over-design of monetising features. No one wants to feel they put this cliff in to get you to buy the levitation potion from the cash shop.

Yeah, the premium idea (6 bucks or whatever), is interesting, as is the idea of earning some points through just playing.   The idea of a recurring 5-6 bucks a month charge that just gives me some nice little bonus, and a pool of shop points is a LOT more enticing than hemming and hawing over whether or not I want to buy this or that  item.   Probably totally psychological, cause I could just as easily spent 5 bucks on points on the first of every month and then treat it the same way, but it doesn't FEEL the same. I think my brain is broken. 

[Count Nerfedalot]

You can't get all that right if your cash shop is an afterthought. Of course the opposite is also terrible: over-design of monetising features. No one wants to feel they put this cliff in to get you to buy the levitation potion from the cash shop.

The latter would be the Allods model.  I sure hope the Torchlight guys busy doing the research to get it right this time.  Frankly, for me and my wife and a few friends anyway, Torchlight 1.0 with the ability to play multiplayer up to 4 or 5 people on locally hosted machines with a battlenet style lobby would be just fine.  Charge a couple bucks a month to pay for the lobby and they could probably approach Diablo 1 success, without the money-sink of free battlenet.  Did Blizzard lose truckloads of money with that model or something?  I don't get the reluctance of the industry to make money by selling games, and let people play together with friends of their own choosing and just charge them enough to cover the costs of the matchmaking services.  Seems a lot more clear-cut than these elaborate f2p models they keep jiggering up.

[Stabs]

Well the cash per player with the MMO model blows the older pricing model out of the water. I spent over $1000 on WoW. I spent $50+$50 on Diablo 2. I spent even less on Diablo 1 as I picked it up second hand.

And DDO has shown that a good game that generates enough traction gets the spend per player in a F2P MMO up to levels comparable with a sub-based MMO.

Nobody who could release something as a "MMO" is going to want to use the old model (except ArenaNet).

[Malakili]

Well the cash per player with the MMO model blows the older pricing model out of the water. I spent over $1000 on WoW. I spent $50+$50 on Diablo 2. I spent even less on Diablo 1 as I picked it up second hand.

And DDO has shown that a good game that generates enough traction gets the spend per player in a F2P MMO up to levels comparable with a sub-based MMO.

Nobody who could release something as a "MMO" is going to want to use the old model (except ArenaNet).

The free to play model seems to be about ease of entry, since you don't need to have anyone shell out 50 bucks to get into the game in the first place, but if that is really a concern I'd say just let people download and play their first month free, then charge monthly like a normal MMO.  There is actually an argument over on the Torchlight forums (sort of), about whether free to play or monthly fee to play is better, and I've been arguing that I'd much prefer to just pay monthly, but there are some vocal proponents who feel that a monthly fee "pressures me into playing 24/7 to get my money's worth because if someone else is playing more than them they are getting more for their 15 bucks than I am."   Thats a paraphrase, but its the gist of it.   I told them they are batshit crazy for thinking that way and all that should matter is whether or not they think they think their 15 bucks would be better spent on something else, but what do I know?

[Tebonas]

I can understand that sentiment, I always feel like I don't get my months worth of money if I play something else instead during the rare times I am subscribed to a MMO. I don't give a fuck how much others are playing, its just that nagging feeling that I'm wasting money. Its quite irrational, and thus not easy to understand for a sane person.  

[Malakili]

I can understand that sentiment, I always feel like I don't get my months worth of money if I play something else instead during the rare times I am subscribed to a MMO. I don't give a fuck how much others are playing, its just that nagging feeling that I'm wasting money. Its quite irrational, and thus not easy to understand for a sane person.  

I can sort of understand it, but to me its like stuffing yourself at an all you can eat buffet just because you can.  I'd much rather just eat until I satisfied and happy rather than stuff myself and feel like shit afterwards, feeling like shit is not "getting more for my money."

[Tebonas]

In my case its more of a "paying a premium price for an all you can eat buffet when you are just a little peckish". I seldom play a MMO more than a week after I resubsribed. Most of the time its 2 or three days.

[Malakili]

In my case its more of a "paying a premium price for an all you can eat buffet when you are just a little peckish". I seldom play a MMO more than a week after I resubsribed. Most of the time its 2 or three days.

Well, this to me is a separate issue of just not playing enough to justify the price in the first place, its the same reason I don't pay 50 bucks for a new game I'm just going to play through the single player.  I look at it more like "if I'm playing enough to warrant the 15 bucks, the rest is just effectively 'free'" Of course you have to reach that "15 bucks worth" threshold in the first place.  The free to play model is clearly superior if you are really only going to play 2-3 day a month, but I'm not sure that describes the average MMOG player.

[Tebonas]

My record was resusbribing, moving my Everquest 2 character from one server to the other, and then quitting after 3 days. That were 20 dollars per day! 

[Sunbury]

Torchlight is isometric, right? (High overhead viewpoint, instead of from character's POV).  

Why do developers still make these?

[Azazel]

 

[Malakili]

Torchlight is isometric, right? (High overhead viewpoint, instead of from character's POV). 

Why to developers still make these?

Wait, you're serious?

[Sunbury]

Torchlight is isometric, right? (High overhead viewpoint, instead of from character's POV).  

Why do developers still make these?

Wait, you're serious?

Yes, just curious.  Is it style or technical?

Reasons against isometric (especially when mainly controlling a single character):
  You can't see stuff your character should be able to see.
  Stuff shoot you from off screen that your character should be able to target and shoot.
  Standing next to a wall hides crap on the ground. One could ghost the wall, but...
  You can't really do a world with rolling terrain, bridges, etc.

Reasons for:
  Well 15 years ago there wasn't 3d hardware so you could not do 3d.
  When 3d came in, it was still kind of limited to CPU power to move stuff around, so with 2d-iso one could add a lot more enemies.
  It is easier to see stuff coming up behind your character, but 3d over-the-shoulder camera remedies this 'glance' effect.

If one is controlling many units, like a party-based RPG or RTS type I can understand it.

[Bunk]

Um... yea.

Ok, why not, I'll answer seriously. It's a style. It's a style to the point of being it's own genre - the Diablo style ARPG.

I can see it being a little bit foreign to the younger audience that grew up on nothing but first person, but to anyone who's a little older here will tell you, top down view (which eventually morphed in to isometric view) has been a staple of RPG games since before computers had more than one color.

As to why is it still used? It works well for games that want to integrate a tactical element to fights, especially involving multiple combatants. Look at a game like Dragon Age - I'm sure lots of people run around in over the shoulder view, but once a fight starts it's far more effective to pull back to isometric, so you can see the whole battlefield.

Until we have banks of multiple monitors setup in our dens to give us peripheral vision, overhead views will always give you a better view of the battle field than first person.

[Sunbury]

I started playing games on a mainframe with a hard-copy terminal where the map was . and +

  I don't play those anymore.

I played pong, asteroids, etc when they came out.  Don't play them anymore.

I played the side-scrollers, don't anymore.

I played, and loved Diablo when it came out (actually I still play diablo 1 once in a while), but I don't care for isometric anymore.

Once 3D / FPS / Over the shoulder came out, in a more-or-less 3d world, I can't get into 'new' games that are not that way - where you control a single character.   Mainly because of the reasons I listed.   The overall view just does not feel right anymore, both where its restricted, and where its not restricted.

[Tebonas]

Its simply a matter of style. You don't like the style, but its valid for all the reasons Bunk stated.

You lose awareness of your surroundings in 3D in fast paced multi target combats, even if you spin around your camera like a ferret on speed.

[Malakili]

You lose awareness of your surroundings in 3D in fast paced multi target combats, even if you spin around your camera like a ferret on speed.

Aside from just the style of ARPGs, this is probably the best reason.  When you are dealing with being surrounded and with tons of monsters, a first person or even over the shoulder view just isn't as good.  I think Hellgate: London is actually a fairly good example of this actually, the first person shooter/third person view wasn't terrible, but I don't think it suited the game nearly as well as an isometric viewpoint would've.  I don't really care if "my character" can see 100 ft ahead straight ahead and I can't because quite frankly what is over there doesn't matter.

This idea that we are somehow on this road of pure progression where any older style is immediately and permanently replaced when something new comes along is odd.  Hell side scrolling platformers that you mentioned are passe are still very popular, and most have added interesting things like modern physics engines to bring them a bit up to date. 

Now, if you don't like isometric because you don't like isometric, fine, but I don't see the need to throw the baby out with the bathwater the way you are.

[Ratman_tf]

Iso is no more or less valid than first person, or even 3rd person. 1st person you lose peripheral vision, 3rd person you gain a bit of it back.
The big difference is that in iso view, you can pick out targets a bit better, and click on them instead of aiming. I mean, nobody aims a sword like a gun.

All of these presentations are equally realistic or unrealistic, as long as we're still using monitors and keyboards and mouse/gamepad interfaces. Different approaches, different styles, different gameplay paradigms.

[Typhon]

So you've played all these different games, managed to find a Torchlight thread... and you don't know that isometric is a stylistic choice?

I usually want us all to be nice to the newer folks but please, go troll some other thread.

[Sunbury]

So you've played all these different games, managed to find a Torchlight thread... and you don't know that isometric is a stylistic choice?

I usually want us all to be nice to the newer folks but please, go troll some other thread.

I'm not trolling.  I asked this same exact question when Diablo 2 came out, and the answer was not style or situational awareness, but technical, meaning with 3D + PC you could not get good frame-rates with 30 mobs on the screen, with isometric you could.

I now understand that many people LIKE isometric, to solve the situational awareness issues, at least until we get some kind of holosuite, helmet thingy.

I just brought it up with Torchlight MMO, since most new PC-client-based MMO's are 3d, only older, or browser-based are isometric nowadays.

[Paelos]

I now understand that many people LIKE isometric...

Good. Glad that's established. Since Torchlight is only $5 at various outlets at various times of the year, I suggest you try it. Otherwise, thanks for stopping by and you can see yourself out.

[Bunk]

Wow, the new guy actually annoyed the dancing monkey. That takes effort.

[Musashi]

So you've played all these different games, managed to find a Torchlight thread... and you don't know that isometric is a stylistic choice?

I usually want us all to be nice to the newer folks but please, go troll some other thread.

I'm not trolling.  I asked this same exact question when Diablo 2 came out, and the answer was not style or situational awareness, but technical, meaning with 3D + PC you could not get good frame-rates with 30 mobs on the screen, with isometric you could.

I now understand that many people LIKE isometric, to solve the situational awareness issues, at least until we get some kind of holosuite, helmet thingy.

I just brought it up with Torchlight MMO, since most new PC-client-based MMO's are 3d, only older, or browser-based are isometric nowadays.

Man, I will fucking KILL you.  What the fuck are you talking about.

The isometric view is integral to diablo-likes.  It's important not to know whether there's a monster right off the screen.  It adds an element of tension that's part of the game.  It's not done in isometric because developers are too lazy to do it in the 'way more awesome' 1st or 3rd person.  It's isometric because 1st and 3rd person sucks.  I can run around town all day in 1st person in real life.  Where's the fun in that?  In isometric, I'm God.  I make all the calls, and direct the action from my perch on high.

If you can't understand that, then you don't belong here.  Go play Halo, you twat.

[Malakili]

Man, I will fucking KILL you.

Thats a little much.

  What the fuck are you talking about.

Better.


Here is why people are pissed at you though Sunbury, you've come into a forum populated by old neck beardy gamers like myself and said "I think we should just do away with the ARPG genre."  You might not know you said it, or have meant to say it,  but thats what you said.

[Paelos]

Wow, the new guy actually annoyed the dancing monkey. That takes effort.

Coming into a thread horribly uniformed, having not even touched the game in question, and then shitting on the entire genre...

Hot button of mine.  

[Trippy]

Sunbury, STFU.

[Azazel]

So anyway, if the MMO version is basically Mythos 2.0, I'll be happy. My wife and I quite enjoyed faffing about on that.

I'm not sure about the payment model though - I wouldn't pay a sub fee for it these days. Now would I pay for it in the equivalent of "RTW points" and I honestly don't know how much I'd micro-transaction it (though I've bought heaps od DLC etc off XBL and even a bit from Steam these days). I'd definately buy a box Guild-Wars style, despite only having had about 4 sessions of GW over the years. Basically, I'd like to have to pay as little as possible, but I'd like them to stay in buisiness.

[Sjofn]

My record was resusbribing, moving my Everquest 2 character from one server to the other, and then quitting after 3 days. That were 20 dollars per day! 

EQ2 seems to have added a "pay five bucks, play for three days" thing. You can only pay said five bucks/play three days once a month, but I don't think there are any other restrictions? I only half paid attention, but it seemed like not the worst idea I've ever seen.

[Azazel]

do they let you upgrade your five buck/3 days thing to a month sub by just adding the other $10 or whatever? If so, I think that's a very clever idea.

[Sjofn]

Hm, the site pimping it isn't totally clear, it says you have to "convert" to a monthly plan but I am not clear on if you have to pay $15 or what. You can go look at it here if you'd like and maybe you can intuit better than I could. 


Sorry for the derail!

[Ratman_tf]

So why haven't sub games tried the pay as you go plan, like a water or power utility? It seems no more or less complex than keeping track of a bunch of microtransactions. Hell, I think that would be the best plan for a MMOFPS like Planetside.

[Fordel]

So why haven't sub games tried the pay as you go plan, like a water or power utility? It seems no more or less complex than keeping track of a bunch of microtransactions. Hell, I think that would be the best plan for a MMOFPS like Planetside.

Isn't that how most sub games originally started? Like the old olden days AOL NeverWinterNights and shit?

[Ratman_tf]

So why haven't sub games tried the pay as you go plan, like a water or power utility? It seems no more or less complex than keeping track of a bunch of microtransactions. Hell, I think that would be the best plan for a MMOFPS like Planetside.

Isn't that how most sub games originally started? Like the old olden days AOL NeverWinterNights and shit?

Yep. I believe UO was the first to go for a flat monthly sub.

[Malakili]

So why haven't sub games tried the pay as you go plan, like a water or power utility? It seems no more or less complex than keeping track of a bunch of microtransactions. Hell, I think that would be the best plan for a MMOFPS like Planetside.

Depending on how much they charged per unit of time, I can't imagine I would pay less than 15 a month to play an MMO I wanted to play.  A flat fee is so much nicer as far as I am concerned, one of the reasons being that I don't need to constantly have a ticker going in my head, just adds a level of stress that isn't good from my point of view.  Now, if they had apay as you go OR pay a flat fee, that could work I suppose.

[Merusk]

So why haven't sub games tried the pay as you go plan, like a water or power utility? It seems no more or less complex than keeping track of a bunch of microtransactions. Hell, I think that would be the best plan for a MMOFPS like Planetside.

Because it sucks to get on, dick around for an hour and then get screwed 2-3 times trying to form a group or do something worthwhile.   Then, on top of the crappy experience you just had you realize you paid $6 for the honor of doing so.    It's what killed Gemstone III for me.

Now, sure, I don't expect modern games would be charging what the old "Premium" text adventures did, but you never know.  They certainly wouldn't be charging the $.03 per hour other MMOs do.